Hadn’t heard of this case before but damn, when a judge gives you concurrent cause they think you’re the type of person to get time added onto your sentence is damming af
The sentence was 15 years to life, implying that in order for her to get out she will need to be paroled. She won’t get out automatically. The judge’s statements are on the record now so it is very unlikely, even if she is a model prisoner, that they will grant her parole in 15 years. Probably more like 20-25.
I feel for the father of the boyfriend. While clearly grieving for his son, he made a statement that he didn’t want her in jail for life, because it’s not like it would fix anything.
I’m torn on that, it comes down to motive. If it was an accident then she shouldn’t be going to jail at all. If it was deliberate as contended - she was charged with murder after all - then it’s shocking and strays into pathological territory - in which case should she ever be released?
I think the father would be right if it had been involuntary manslaughter but to be charged with murder for a car crash is highly unusual. Having said that it’s possible this was an inappropriate charge and judgement and might get overturned on appeal.
Did you read the article? She threatened to do it multiple times on previous days. She then scoped out the site she would do it at before she actually did it. 100% premeditated murder.
What does that actually mean “15 years to life”? A minimum of 15 years with the possibility to be released on parole for the first time after 15 years and - if she doesn’t get it - she could also spend her whole life in prison? I didn’t understand the addition “to life” in the sentence.
I’ve never understood that. How is serving sentences concurrently at all the same punishment? Are there cases where someone has two sentences that can be ruled either to serve consecutively or concurrently? Who makes that decision and what goes into it?
The idea is to make sure that there isn’t an unjust stacking of time due to many little crimes being committed during a larger crime. As an example, let’s say a first time offender breaks into a bank and tries to rob it. If they applied the maximum for each individual crime, it is easy for the punishment to balloon into something that is much worse than the crime itself calls for—trespassing + robbery + destruction of property + whatever else you did = 80+ years for a first time offense.
When the judge chooses to have the sentences run concurrently, the prisoner will serve the longest sentence they have gotten for one of the crimes, but will still have all the crimes on their record. This gives them a greater possibility to be released after a more reasonable amount of time (10-20 years), which gives them a chance of rehabilitation and reduces the burden on the taxpayer to house people for very long amounts of time.
It is worth remembering that some people who commit crimes early in life go on to be productive and admirable citizens. Stephen Fry did time for fraud as a teenager, and then went on to be a beloved actor and writer. Sometimes those skills can be turned around to do good.
Indeed. What I intended when I said that was that the judge thought consecutive wouldn’t even be needed because she’s going to be spending way more than 15 in prison.
A dig simular to if a judge only fined someone $1k instead of $10 and saying “you still won’t be able to pay 1k”
Hadn’t heard of this case before but damn, when a judge gives you concurrent cause they think you’re the type of person to get time added onto your sentence is damming af
The sentence was 15 years to life, implying that in order for her to get out she will need to be paroled. She won’t get out automatically. The judge’s statements are on the record now so it is very unlikely, even if she is a model prisoner, that they will grant her parole in 15 years. Probably more like 20-25.
I feel for the father of the boyfriend. While clearly grieving for his son, he made a statement that he didn’t want her in jail for life, because it’s not like it would fix anything.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-teen-100-mph-crash-father-boyfriend-life-prison-rcna100635
I’m torn on that, it comes down to motive. If it was an accident then she shouldn’t be going to jail at all. If it was deliberate as contended - she was charged with murder after all - then it’s shocking and strays into pathological territory - in which case should she ever be released?
I think the father would be right if it had been involuntary manslaughter but to be charged with murder for a car crash is highly unusual. Having said that it’s possible this was an inappropriate charge and judgement and might get overturned on appeal.
Strange case.
Did you read the article? She threatened to do it multiple times on previous days. She then scoped out the site she would do it at before she actually did it. 100% premeditated murder.
She was tried with two counts of murder. She was found guilty of two counts of murder.
At what point did you become all confused and unsure of things?
That father is a better person than I. But personally, if she killed my son, I’d enjoy watching her be torn to shreds.
What does that actually mean “15 years to life”? A minimum of 15 years with the possibility to be released on parole for the first time after 15 years and - if she doesn’t get it - she could also spend her whole life in prison? I didn’t understand the addition “to life” in the sentence.
Concurrent = at the same time
Consecutive = one after another
Concurrent is almost always the better deal.
I think you mean “consecutive”.
Some great consecutive criticism there.
Yeah, typo, fixed
I’ve never understood that. How is serving sentences concurrently at all the same punishment? Are there cases where someone has two sentences that can be ruled either to serve consecutively or concurrently? Who makes that decision and what goes into it?
The idea is to make sure that there isn’t an unjust stacking of time due to many little crimes being committed during a larger crime. As an example, let’s say a first time offender breaks into a bank and tries to rob it. If they applied the maximum for each individual crime, it is easy for the punishment to balloon into something that is much worse than the crime itself calls for—trespassing + robbery + destruction of property + whatever else you did = 80+ years for a first time offense.
When the judge chooses to have the sentences run concurrently, the prisoner will serve the longest sentence they have gotten for one of the crimes, but will still have all the crimes on their record. This gives them a greater possibility to be released after a more reasonable amount of time (10-20 years), which gives them a chance of rehabilitation and reduces the burden on the taxpayer to house people for very long amounts of time.
It is worth remembering that some people who commit crimes early in life go on to be productive and admirable citizens. Stephen Fry did time for fraud as a teenager, and then went on to be a beloved actor and writer. Sometimes those skills can be turned around to do good.
Indeed. What I intended when I said that was that the judge thought consecutive wouldn’t even be needed because she’s going to be spending way more than 15 in prison.
A dig simular to if a judge only fined someone $1k instead of $10 and saying “you still won’t be able to pay 1k”